So, losing is perfectly fine as long as ideological purity is maintained. I've seen this sad & delusional rhetoric among the far-left much too often, but this is the first time I've seen it in the Republican Party. I'm overjoyed, this is the statement of a branch of that party that will do wonders for insuring further Democrat victories. I couldn't be more pleased.Current Mood:pleased

I think that this trend may be counterbalanced by the fact that the common blue dog complaint that voting remotely like a progressive will get them voted out by moderate Republicans will start looking pretty darn hollow. I have no idea if the sum of these two trends will be positive or negative, but I am hopeful.

I'm certain that the lunatics will eventually be tossed out by moderate Republicans, but given that the lunatics currently have far more mass media access, I'm fairly certain that this won't happen until at least one defeat even more stunning that 2008. Perhaps after 2012 - I've we're lucky enough to see them run some walking joke like Palin for president, the Reagan/Mondale-like defeat there might be some changes. OTOH, they might hang on for as long as another decade.

I vote for ideological purity. I NEVER vote for a party I do not approve of. Progress does not come from either the Democratic or Republican establishment. FDR was *forced* left because of pressure from the Socialists and Populists.

From my PoV (and history seems rather to bear this out) ideological purity is the response of groups that are either soon destined for obscure powerlessness or for groups that are already like that. I also have fairly situational ethics, and have yet to find any sort of ideological purity that I don't regularly find constraining and disturbing. However, mostly the reason I oppose it is that in almost all cases life consists of compromise and any position that does not admit this as a reasonable possibility seems to me to be nonsensical.

Eisenhower was the bomb. He had that rare combination of savvy and wisdom that made his politics almost irrelevant, his responses to most political issues being so darn intelligent. As with psychotherapy, in politics, I think orientation is often less important than competence.

I was also impressed to find out that he was pretty much responsible for the US getting to the Moon. He deliberately delayed any US satellite launches until the USSR launched one. He did this so they would be the ones to establish the right of satellites to overfly other nations (the USSR might have protested if the US did this first), but the sudden public shock that the US might not be best in space effectively started the whole Space Race. Of course, once the US won, the general public lost all interest in space exploration...

I'm really heartened any time I see a 50.5% win by the Republicans is heralded as a sign to intensify their conservativeness, rather than a sign they are surfing a sour public mood. With luck, bunker-ammo Republicans will soon be a nearly extinct species, and the survivors will be filled with sadness and scorn and defect to the Conservative party where they should have been in the first place. At least hardcore Marxists know enough to wipe their feet at the door during election season.